ML20210H578
| ML20210H578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1999 |
| From: | Turdici J NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210H567 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908040049 | |
| Download: ML20210H578 (3) | |
Text
I' P .
f ,
[ sa UNITED STATES )
j t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 0001 49
% , , ,o June 16, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Pr i
^
FROM: James Turdici, Direc )
Division of Accounting and F nance Office of the Chief Fina ' Officer
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE -- 100 PERCENT RECOVERY -- FY 1993 Attached is a copy of the June 10,1999, Federal Register Notice of Final Rulemaking relating to the FY 1999 NRC license, inspection and annual fees. The effective date for the final rule is August 9,1999.
Because the proposed rule solicited comments on two potential annual fee schedules, we are j mailing the final rule to all NRC licensees, Agreement States, and Non-agreement States. '
However, it is requested that OSP notify the Agreement States to make distribution of the final rule to their licensees since the final rule will assess fees to those Agreement State licensees i' who perform work in Non-agreement States under the reciprocity provisions of 150.20.
We do not plan to routinely mail final rules to licensees and the States in the future, but will continue to mail the proposal fee rules as a courtesy. Copies will, of course, be sent upon request. I
Attachment:
As stated
Contact:
Glenda C. Jackson, OCFO to 415-6057 '[
EE Go Ch <
g U !
e E
^
9900040049 990701 PDR STPRG ESOGEN PDR L ._
j
~
W un 0,1999 e
Part IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Pads 170 and 171 R o ery, FY 999; na Nu e i
O
! 31448 Feder:1 Regist:r/Vol. 64, No.111/ Thursday, June 10,1999/ Rules and Regulations
, 24UCLEAR REGULATORY The NRC assesses two types of fees to in accordance with the prohsed fee l COMMISSION recover its budget authority. First, schedule. These commenters challenged
[ license an,d inspection fees, established the agency's interpretation of the 10 CM Parts 170 and 171 at to CFR part 170 under the authority statutes underpinning NRC's fee RIN 3150-AG08 f the Independent Offices collection proposal. These same Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA). 31 questions have been raised since the Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee U.S.C. 9701, recover the NRC's costs of inception of the 100 percent fee Recovery, FY 1999 PT V.iding individually identifiable collection requirement in 1991. The services to specific applicants and Commission has consistently AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory licensees. Examples of the services interpreted its statutory mandate, but in Commission. provided by the NRC for which these the face of continuing complaints, the ACnON: Final rule, fees are assessed are the review of Commission will again address the applications for the issuance of new concerns raised by commenters.
suansARY:The Nuclear Regulatory licenses, approvals or renewals, and 1. Comment. Comments submitted by Commission (NRC)is amending the amendments to licenses or approvals, or on behalf of commercial nuclear liccasing, inspection, and annual fees Second, annual fees, established at to power reactors, the uranium recovery charged to its applicants and licensees. CFR Part 171 under the authority of industry, and a materials licensee The amendments are necessary to DBRA-90, recover generic and other expressed serious concern over implement the Omnibus Budget regulatory costs not recovered through inequities caused by the statutory Reconcillation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), 10 CFR part 170 fees. The NRC mandate that NRC collect an annual as amanded, which mandates that the published a proposed rule that charge from licensees aggregating NRC recover approximately 100 percent presented the amendments to parts 170 approximately 100 percent of the budget of its budgr.t authority in Fiscal Year and 171 necessary to comply with authority for the fiscal year, less fees (FY) 1999, less amounts appropriated OBRA -90 for FY 1999 on April 1,1999 collected under Past 170 and any from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). (64 FR 15876), amount appropriated from the Nuclear The amount to be recovered for FY 1999 Waste Fund or the General Fund. These is approximately $449.6 million. H. Responses to Conunents commenters are particularly distressed EFFECTWE DATE: August 9,1999. A total of thirty-four comments were at having to absorb charges in their ADDRESSES: Copies of comments received on the pro osed rule. Although annual fees for activities that do not received and the agency work papers the conunent perio ended on May 3, directly benefit them, such as 1999, the NRC evaluated the 26 . international activities Agreement State that support these final changes to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 ma be c mments which were received by the oversight and regulatory support, cxamined at the NRC Pubtfc Document close of business on May 5,1999. The activities for other Federal agencies, and Room,2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), NRC was unable to consider the eight fee reductions or exemptions for small Washington, DC 20555-0001. c mments received after May 5,1999, as entitles and nonprofit educational they were not received in sufficient time institutions. One commenter, speaking FOR FURNEHFORMATM NTACT:
Glenda Jackson, OfBce of the Chief for the NRC staff and the Commission to on behalf of several commercial power evaluate them fully in the limited reactors, questioned the NRC's legal and FinancialOfficer U.S. Nuclear period available for preparing a final constitutional authority to impose these Regulatory Commission Washington, rule in this expedited rulemaking charges. The commenter did not believe DC 20555-0001, Telephone 301-415-proceeding. In any event, a cursory the 100 percent budget recovery 6057.*
review of those late comments did not requirement could be reconciled with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reveal any substantive new issues. OBRA-90, which requires that annual I. Background. Many of the comments were similar. fees bear a reasonable relationship to the IL Responses to Comments.
- m. Final Action.
These comments have been grouped, as cost of regulatory services and to be IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards. appropriate, and addressed as single , fairly and equitably allocated among V. Environmental Impact: Categoncal issues in this final rule. licensees.
The comments are as follows: Commenters concluded that the VI. P or Reduction Act Statement. A. legalIssues desired relief for this problem can come.
VD. Regulatory Analysis. .
Only by legislative changes to OBRA-90 VUI. Regulatory Flex 6tlity Analysis. Several commenters raised questions to relax the 100 percent budget recovery IX. Backfit Analysis; about NRC's legalinterpretation of requirement so that certain costs can be l X. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement OBRA-90 and the IOAA. These removed from the fee base. They l Fairness Act. comments are addressed first because remained hopeful that the desired relief
- 1. Background their resolution establishes the may be forthcomingin spite of their i framework for addressing subsequent awareness that the Adnunistration has
! OBRA-90, as amended, requires that issues raised by commenters. not supported such a relaxation. In th) NRC recover approximately 100 The commenters attempted to present some cases, however, commenters percent of its budget authority, less the a balanced view of the proposed fee perceived that the NRC has alternatives amount appropriated from the schedule, and even applauded the it is not using, such as charging Department of Energy (DOE) NRC's " considerable effort over the past Agreement States for services provided, cdministered Nuclear Waste Fund year to reduce inefficiencies through in addition, they insisted that the NRC (NWF). Certain NRC costs related to strategic planning and reorganizations." should recover these types of costs reviews and other assistanco provided Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear that through General Fuuds appropriations to the Department of Energy were most commenters believe that the NRC from the Congress. In their view, when excluded from the fee recovery has a long way to go to reach a truly fair all else fails, the NRC must simply requirem.ent for FY 1999 by the FY 1999 and equitable system of fee allocation. discontinue the "unfunded" program Energy and Water Development Several commenters asserted that the rather than pass along these costs to the Appropriations Act. NRC lacks the legal authority to set fees licensees. These commenters asserted l
L >